Monday, February 25, 2008

“Dissent is the mother of ascent,” Ralph Nader said on “Meet the Press” this morning. “And in that context, I have decided to run for president.”

Beginning his fourth consecutive third-party bid for the presidency, Mr. Nader, a consumer advocate, cited a litany of issues he felt had been “taken off the table,” including single-payer health care, the war, labor law reform and “cracking down on corporate crime.”

Mr. Nader is still blamed by many Democrats around the country for siphoning votes from Al Gore in 2000. Asked about this by Tim Russert, the host of the NBC show, he replied, “Not George Bush? Not the Democrats in Congress? Not the Democrats who voted for George Bush?,” before listing several other factors that would have led to Mr. Gore’s victory and accusing people opposed to his candidacy of “political bigotry.” But ultimately, he said, “Let’s get over it and try to have a diverse, multiple choice, multiple party ballot like they do in Western Europe and Canada.”

He ruled out the possibility that he would prevent a Democratic victory in 2008.

“Not a chance,” he said. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form.”

And

“Meet the Press” played a video clip of Mr. Obama answering a question about a possible Nader candidacy on Friday:

You know, he had called me and I think reached out to my campaign — my sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work. Now — and by the way, I have to say that, historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways he is a heroic figure and I don’t mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way.

Back when I was teaching high school, one of my students emailed me to ask why I favor evolution over creation. My response didn't try to pressure him; I just tried to explain where I was coming from, what evolution is about, and why it's not necessarily incompatible with belief in some kind of god, even the Christian God. My final assertion, that we share some 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, which strongly suggests that humans and chimps share common ancestry, sent him over the edge. His reply was something to the effect that I was just trying to be different, that I had no idea what I was talking about, that I was just being arbitrary for the sake of it.

A couple of days later I found myself in the principal's office trying to explain what had happened, and was warned off of virtually all email exchanges with students. That's "education" for you.

No matter. My point here is that this kid, completely unable to actually engage with me in any real discussion of the evolution "controversy," resorted to attacking me instead of my arguments. That's what lots of people do when, as the saying goes, they got nothin'.

Democrats like Barack Obama know they got nothin' when it comes to actually debating Nader on the issues. Instead of taking on directly Nader's assertion that the Democrats are ignoring the great benefits of single-payer healthcare, aren't taking a strong enough stance on the war, aren't reversing the decades-long transformation of labor protections into an exploitation bonanza, and are allowing the corporations who own and run the United States to make a mockery of democracy, Obama essentially said something to the effect of "Nader just wants us to do what he says."

What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? If Obama really thinks his ideas are better than Nader's, why doesn't he actually make some arguments? Answer: Obama knows Nader's right. Or, at least, Obama knows he's got nothin'.

Indeed, they all know they got nothin'. That's why you'll never see Democratic spokemen, candidates, and elected officials take on Nader's issues directly. They have to resort to bullshit attacks on Nader himself.

And that's as big of an argument as any for supporting Nader over any Democrat. Donkey-butts refuse to talk about issues. Those fuckers need a big black eye. A bloody nose, too. And "stealing" their votes is the only way to do it.